Slashdot Mirror
Climatologist Speaks On the Effects of Geoengineering
Lasrick writes: In this interview with Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock, he discusses geoengineering and nuclear winter. Robock believes that geoengineering is not the solution to global warming because of its many risks and unknowns. He notes that some of the technology that would be required to implement geoengineering has not been developed and that many socio-political questions would have to be resolved before it could be put into practice. To start with, the world would have to reach agreement on a target temperature and on what entity should do the implementing. Robock's biggest fear with regard to geoengineering is that disputes over these questions could escalate into nuclear war which in turn could cause nuclear winter, producing global famine among other effects. Fascinating, wide-ranging interview with one of the world's top climatologists.
To paper over a deep problem with a shallow solution.
Well, what surer way to stop global warming than nuclear winter? It's the ultimate geoengineering project!
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The two of you hopefully agree that your interests are aligned, however.
What happens if the Russian plan for reducing temperature means a return of Dust Bowl conditions in the Great Plains of North America, and they start doing it unilaterally? You don't see how that could lead to a rapid escalation with Mr. "I'll nuke before I give Crimea back" Putin?
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
When climatologists say geo-engineering is not the solution, they mean a political solution to drastically and immediately reduce CO2 emissions, is a better choice. Of course, that is NOT going to happen. So the choice is not between geo-engineering and some theoretical perfect solution, but between geo-engineering and doing almost nothing. I don't think we are to the point where we should roll out large scale geo-engineering, but we certainly should be doing the research so it is an option in the future. Currently it is politically incorrect to do even minimal research.
At least with carbon reduction we're attempting to reverse climate changes through a mechanism believed to trigger those changes. However, with new intervention mechanisms that aren't fully understood, I don't trust anybody's model of what they think will happen.
My (likely) worst case scenario: an ice age in 100 years. That would be worse than global warming.
Right winger before denial became untenable: you can't trust the models! Climate change is a hoax!
Right winger after denial became untenable: our models say geo-engineering is safe and will work! Trust us!
If you can't get the political will to do the simple safe thing, you won't get it to do the complex reckless thing.
Sorry, but you can't equate a nations survival against a different nation with an argument with your wife. Not even close to the same thing, and much more is at stake. Take his biggest example, what should Earth's surface temperature target? Any fixed rate will impact someone's growing seasons and food production. Somebody has to lose something, or perhaps it's best to term it "sacrifice" something. Does Asia lose rice production, or does Europe/North America lose grain production?
The article does not even tough the bigger issues. The particles that have been patented for use in GeoEngineering are hazardous. Perhaps there are other patents we don't know about, but the ones we do know about are primarily barium and aluminum. Neither humans or animals process large amounts of metals very well, and metals have a toxic effect over time because we can't process them out of our systems. Somebody has to take the blame when people start dropping, and war is probably going seen as the only option to fight off "those evil poisoner people".
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Step 1: Tell China that they can no longer spew carbon into the atmosphere and that their industry is now under the authority of the U.N.
Step 2: Break out the marshmallows.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
2. is the renewable option, which is worse than doing nothing as it has large ecological and economic impact for virtually no benefit.
3. may be necessary at some point for things like ocean acidification, but doesn't solve the fundamental energy problem.
However, limiting oneself to three unworkable options isn't productive, so let's introduce another:
4. the nuclear option; ie. doing something which actually works. The BRIC countries are already embracing this one.
I prefer 4, as it provides reliable carbon neutral energy with minimal environmental footprint. Density is key, in energy as well as other human endeavors. I refer people to An Ecomodernist Manifesto for the motivations. Those who truly value the environment and prosperity of humans should read that. The end goal is well within reach, but indulging in the "green" fantasy won't lead us there.
You've got that backwards: there can be no solution to global warming, as too many wealthy people have too much to lose from their industries, so fund the constant obfuscation.
I've seen multimillionaires threaten entire city councils over environmental action that doesn't suit them.